Hemostasis of arteriovenous fistula: Comparison of direct two-finger pressure to an adjustable device.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pressure generated by an adjustable hemostasis clamp on arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) during the hemostasis proccess, and compare it with the direct two-finger pressure applied by the patient. To evaluate the variations of the direct two-finger pressure along the hemostasis process. METHODS: We analyzed data obtained in 51 hemodialysis procedures from 15 patients. AVF intraaccess pressure was used as indirect indicator of the pressure generated by both methods. It was recorded before venous needle removal (PBasal), at clamp application (P1), after clamp adjustement by a nurse (P2), at the beginning of the direct two-finger pressure by the patient (M0), after 3 min of two-finger pressure (M3) and after 6 min of two-finger pressure (M6). RESULTS: Intra-access pressure was lower with the adjusted clamp (P2) than with the direct two-finger pressure by the patient (M0) (variation of -18.57%, 95%CI -14.09 to -4.77 mmHg, P < 0.001). Intraaccess pressure generated by the direct two-finger pressure method showed a decreasing trend along the hemostasis process (M3-M0: -8.82 mmHg, P < 0.001; M6-M0: -12.55 mmHg, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An adjustable fistula arm clamp generates a lower pressure in AVF than the direct two-finger pressure applied by the patient. The latter showed a decreasing trend along the hemostasis process. These data suggest that some of the recommendations from clinical guidelines could be based on inaccurate premises.

Evaluation of dialysis centres: values and criteria of the stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of renal replacement therapy with haemodialysis is essential for its improvement. Remarkably, outcomes vary across centres. In addition, the methods used have important epistemological limitations, such as ignoring significant features (e.g., quality of life) or no relevance given to the patient's perspective in the indicator's selection. The present study aimed to determine the opinions and preferences of stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and managers) and establish their relative importance, considering the complexity of their interactions, to facilitate a comprehensive evaluation of haemodialysis centres. METHODS: Successive working groups (WGs) were established using a multicriteria methodology. WG1 created a draft of criteria and sub-criteria, WG2 agreed, using a qualitative structured analysis with pre-established criteria, and WG3 was composed of three face-to-face subgroups (WG3-A, WG3-B, and WG3-C) that weighted them using two methodologies: weighted sum (WS) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Subsequently, they determined a preference for the WS or AHP results. Finally, via the Internet, WG4 weighted the criteria and sub-criteria by the method preferred by WG3, and WG5 analysed the results. RESULTS: WG1 and WG2 identified and agreed on the following evaluation criteria: evidence-based variables (EBVs), annual morbidity, annual mortality, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). The EBVs consisted of five sub-criteria: type of vascular access, dialysis dose, haemoglobin concentration, ratio of catheter bacteraemia, and bone mineral disease. The patients rated the PROMs with greater weight than the other stakeholders in both face-to-face WG3 (WS and AHP) and WG4 via the Internet. The type of vascular access was the most valued sub-criterion. A performance matrix of each criterion and sub-criterion is presented as a reference for assessing the results based on the preferences of the stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a multicriteria methodology allows the relative importance of the indicators to be determined, reflecting the values of the different stakeholders. In a performance matrix, the inclusion of values and intangible aspects in the evaluation could help in making clinical and organizational decisions.

Shared decision-making in advanced chronic kidney disease in the elderly. / Toma de decisiones compartida en la enfermedad renal crónica avanzada del anciano.

Chronic kidney disease is common in people >65years of age. The development and improvement of dialysis techniques has allowed its generalisation to the entire population, when there is a situation of terminal nephropathy, without limit of use due to chronological age. Decision making in elderly patients with advanced chronic kidney disease is complex: in addition to renal parameters, both comorbidity and the presence of geriatric syndromes must be considered. This review addresses the management of information, the decision making of different treatment modalities that can be offered to these patients, and the time of initiation and/or withdrawal of dialysis.

The need for genetic study to diagnose some cases of distal renal tubular acidosis. / Necesidad de estudio genético para el diagnóstico de algunos casos de acidosis tubular renal distal.

We describe the case of a young woman who was diagnosed with advanced kidney disease, with an incidental finding of nephrocalcinosis of unknown aetiology, having been found asymptomatic throughout her life. The genetic study by panels of known genes associated with tubulointerstitial disease allowed us to discover autosomal dominant distal renal tubular acidosis associated with a de novo mutation in exon 14 of the SLC4A1 gene, which would have been impossible to diagnose clinically due to the advanced nature of the kidney disease when it was discovered.